CSG President Says Boycott of PSU Kickoff = Not Supporting Players
This morning the University of Michigan student body President sent out an email stating that a boycott of the kickoff for Penn State means we are not supporting the players:
My Fellow Students,
Recently, we have heard a lot of frustration and dissatisfaction with Michigan Athletics and Michigan Football. To address this, CSG has created a survey to gain your feedback on your own Michigan football experiences and how we can make it better. The survey results will be shared with the Athletic Director, Athletic Department, President, Regents, and other administrators to work to create positive change. Please help us by taking this short survey [link to survey redacted per the request of someone close to the CSG - LSA]
Earlier this week a call was made for us to boycott the opening of the Penn State game by waiting outside the gates until after kickoff to create the illusion that the stadium is empty. By not showing up to the opening of the game, all we are doing is hurting the players on the field. Our university has a long standing history of positive activism, a desire to create change that will benefit students, not harm our peers. To disregard the work of the athletes would be detrimental not only for the players themselves, but for the image of the university as a whole. Now, more than ever, we need to stand by blue. Share your support for the team by using #StandByBlue.
Go Blue!
Bobby Dishell
Student Body President
Central Student Government
https://csg.umich.edu
As usual, Support the Troops is not an argument. We all support the players. We don't support the administration and the coaching staff. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Everyone should do what they like. If you boycott, fine. If not, fine.
October 10th, 2014 at 4:47 PM ^
you've named it yourself - it's reductio ad hitlerium. You do understand the point of that fallacy, correct? By employing an outrageously over the top analogy, the debate is derailed by associating one's opponent with, by vaious degrees over the last several weeks: the nazi party, opposing women's suffrage, opposing civil rights, and today, terrorist organizations. It is hilariously over the top, and there's no questoin the intent is to poison and demonize any opposition. It is what mobs do.
I shouldn't have to explain how analogies work, but, apparently, that's in order here.
October 10th, 2014 at 5:09 PM ^
and you may or may not know it.
Saying "his behavior is like Hitler" is an over the top statement and an attempt to derail discussion.
Making a humorous analogy that questions the independence of the speaker is qualitatively different. The point there is to question the independence of the speaker, not to tar the other person in the argument with a hitler brush.
But, apparently, subtle distinctions are lost on you.
Just to examine what you've done here, though, it's not a pretty picture. You've transformed "sounds like a hostage statement" into an "outrageously over the top analogy(!!!!)." Poppycock.
There's no way that the poster even had the slightest intention to suggest that the CSG president's physical freedom is in anyway restricted. It's a reference toward, not the drawing of a likeness to. Whereas when someone goes ad hitlerium, there's an actual attempt to make a connection between the evil of the speaker's position and the evil that was Hitler.
I honestly question whether you even believe the over the top nonsense you're advancing here. I doubt most consider "that sounds like a hostage statement" to be anything other than a shorthand reference to legitimate questions as to the independence of the person making the statement.
Do you seriously believe the poster meant to draw some connection between Brandon's AD and a terrorist organization? If so, I suspect it is you, not the other poster, who is out of your damn mind.
October 10th, 2014 at 5:28 PM ^
Above is abusive ad hominem: personal attack.
As to the argument, I'm sure you're in the practice of walking around at work saying or your neighborhood BBQ, saying "Hey boss/co-worker/neighbor, what you're saying makes me think you're just like Jerry Sandusky in the way you XXXX. What? You're upset?? That's totally insane that you wouldbe upset!! I didn't mean that you were a rapist of young boys, I just mean that you did XXXX in the same way that Jerry Sandusky did! Come on that's totally a working analogy!"
Comparing someone's views or actions to what Hitler would believe is a fallacy. Comparing someone's views or actions to what a nazi would believe is a fallacy. Comparing someone's views or actions to what a women's rights opponent or civil rights opponent or terrorist or hostage taker is a fallacy. Unless of course that's what those people are doing.
Dave Brandon is not doing those things. It's a weak and ridiculous form or argument. It thrives on the interet because of anonymity.
October 10th, 2014 at 5:29 PM ^
when you refer to Hitler or to Sandusky, you refer to a specific evil.
When you refer to "human shields" or "sounds like a hostage statement" you are just referring to something generic to indicate a generalized take on the situation.
These are not comparable. Well, they are comparable, but so qualitatively different as to make the comparison silly.
October 10th, 2014 at 8:35 PM ^
October 13th, 2014 at 5:16 PM ^
"seeking to smear with connotations."
Step back and ask yourself if you really think this poster thinks Brandon has any likeness whatsoever to terrorists (except in reference to some power over another relationship) who blow people up and cut people's heads off.
I think you're the one who has lost sight of reality.
Sounds like you've taken something you learned in class somewhere and misapplied it terribly due to some real problems with perception and context.
Not all analogies seek to pull in connotations.
October 10th, 2014 at 5:26 PM ^
having a cow over the use of terms like "human shield" - THEY'RE SAYING BRANDON IS A TERORRIST!!!!
For the record, my post has nothing to do with cows, and is not meant to cast asparagus at any of them.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^
rational...
October 10th, 2014 at 11:15 AM ^
There are other methods by which you can demonstrate your disdain for the coaching staff or athletic director that do not have a negative impact on the players. Take the survey, write several letters to administration, don't buy tickets for next season.
The point is that an empty stadium at kickoff embarrasses not only the AD, but the players and the school in general. I know, as an alum, I will be incredibly embarrassed if this happens.
There are better ways to get your point across (if it hasn't already been made perfectly clear, which I would argue it has).
October 10th, 2014 at 12:04 PM ^
October 10th, 2014 at 12:23 PM ^
Because I'm not interested in supporting JUST this team. I'm interested in supporting the entire University of Michigan Football Program. That means making sure that teams beyond just this year have the right support, the right coaches, the right players, policies, etc. It means making sure that future teams best represent my university and connect me to what I love about Michigan. It means making sure that current players and players that aren't even enrolled are put in the best position to be successful. Those things aren't happening today. So, if making a small effort to ensure those things happen means embarrassing the Athletic Department (even if just a little) more than they already should be and making the current players feel like they aren't supported for the first 5 minutes of a game, then so be it. I'm in this for the long haul... not just this season.
October 10th, 2014 at 4:00 PM ^
I'm already embarrased by the AD and the school in general.
October 10th, 2014 at 11:15 AM ^
remember this is just a undergrad college kid. The right response is always " Shut up kid and go fetch my coffee".
Who the hell says shit like "stand by blue"? Does he go to Kentucky?
October 10th, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^
Kentucky is Big Blue. If we can say "Go Blue" why can't he say "Stand by Blue"?
October 10th, 2014 at 1:17 PM ^
We are the *Maize* and Blue.
And there is proud tradtion of referring to our team as "Michigan". Not "univ of Michigan", not "U of M", not "Big Blue". Just MICHIGAN.
Only asinine sports writers (national) refer to us by these other monickers.
October 10th, 2014 at 3:26 PM ^
But if we say "Let's go Blue", isn't "Blue" a monicker for Michigan?"Blue" being the entity we want to "go". We are the Maize and Blue but are we not allowed to have multiple names? What about the Yellow and Blue? Maybe students/coaches/fans shortened it to just "Blue" because "Let's go Maize and Blue" was too long. Besides I've heard multiple people (fans/people associated with the unversity) call us "Blue", not just reporters.
October 10th, 2014 at 11:18 AM ^
I don't think it's hard to relate to the pang of disappointment a player would feel coming out of the tunnel to an empty stadium. I mean, the players KNOW it isn't directed at them, but it would certainly be a gut punch to their enthusiasm. Putting myself in their shoes, I know it would sort of kill the excitement for me going into a game. That part at least seems obvious to me. To add that to the pile of an already disappointing season in some respects seems mean.
However, it is equally obvious to me that boycotting is probably the most effective means of getting the attention needed to set the wheels of change in motion. TV coverage talks.
I'm ambivalent.
October 10th, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^
October 10th, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 10th, 2014 at 11:25 AM ^
Now we've moved on to the players' sense of entitlement. How DARE they!
October 10th, 2014 at 11:30 AM ^
You know these "little boys" everyone tries to shield on this website are, in fact, 18-23 year old young men. I think that after going 2-4, they might bear a small semblance of responsibility as well. Maybe they aren't entitled to have 109,000 show up NO MATTER WHAT. We've seen the statements, the athletes have chosen to support Dave Brandon. That's fine.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^
to just assume that 110,000 people should show up to see Michigan no matter how bad they are.
When Crisler was empty during the Amaker years, no one pleaded for them to sell out Crisler because the team sucked and no one would expect Crisler to be sold under those circumstances. Michigan football sucks, therefore people don't want to watch it. That is perfectly normal
October 10th, 2014 at 1:05 PM ^
They're only saying they want you to...
That's not "entitlement," just appreciation.
October 10th, 2014 at 11:51 AM ^
I'm sure the boycott definitely does not send a message from students of any sense of entitlement whatsoever. Nope, not at all.
There are shades of grey everywhere, and it bothers me deeply that some on the "pro-boycott" bandwagon completely dismiss the idea that this harms the students. Because it fucking does. Intentions be damned (the road to hell is paved with good intentions).
October 10th, 2014 at 12:05 PM ^
The question is whether the harm is worth it. There's no question a boycott is not ideal. But are they being harmed too much by this? It's not much harm. And we all harm Michigan athletes constantly by failing to attend their various events.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^
I don't think it's entitlement when you consider what students are paying to attend Football games and then see how they are being antagonized by the AD at every turn. For all that, you should get something far greater than complete incompetence in return.
October 10th, 2014 at 1:05 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 10th, 2014 at 11:24 AM ^
Those players are "hurt" day in and day out by the FAILURE of OUR FANS to support them. The constant boycotting of softball, wrestling, and swimming events has to stop. It's evident that none of these players can perform without the fan support and WE are only HURTING them. Recruiting in those sports is a disaster too! /s
October 10th, 2014 at 12:18 PM ^
October 10th, 2014 at 1:09 PM ^
It's embarrassing for University of Michigan football players to come out for a primetime home game against Penn State and see an empty student section, even if the organizers claim it has nothing to do with the players.
October 10th, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^
I Think it's pretty obvious how this would negatively impact the players. A half empty stadium would kill the environment. You guys say you're boycotting on behalf of the coaches and not the players, but if I'm a player and I look up in the stands and see a half empty my first thought would be that the fans aren't behind US.
Let's be honest here. You guys wouldn't be boycotting the coaches/Dave Brandon if we were undefeated regardless of the Shane Morris fiasco. How many posts were there about the ineptitude of the athletic department before the season? None! Michigan sucks this year and the fans want Brady Hoke gone which I agree with but let's not pretend these boycotts are about anything other than that fact.
Neg away.
October 10th, 2014 at 11:25 AM ^
1. Student seating
2. Water price gouging
3. Ads
4. RAWK music, special K
5. Band is a side-show
For 2 years now. Which rock were you under?
October 10th, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^
October 10th, 2014 at 11:37 AM ^
It's funny. When I was a student, I smuggled booze into the stadium. Now I smuggle water into the stadium.
October 10th, 2014 at 1:04 PM ^
Season ticket prices vs secondary market
Constant push for donations
Concession prices
Ads
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 10th, 2014 at 11:32 AM ^
Done. Tired of some folks around here telling me (and others of like mind) what it is I "actually" think about the situation, despite numerous well articulated posts to the contrary.
October 10th, 2014 at 11:33 AM ^
plus the "let's be honest" and the strawman "if we were undefeated" canards. You hit the big three. All of these have been debunked many times over the past few weeks.
The complaints about Hoke and particularly Brandon have been ongoing long before this season's fiasco.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:30 PM ^
"How many posts were there about the ineptitude of the athletic department before the season?"
A lot actually, Brian has been railing against the AD for going on 2 years now for all of the other bonheaded stuff he does to make Michigan look stupid.
October 10th, 2014 at 2:23 PM ^
I am admittedly one of those people who cares relatively little about anything other than our win-loss record. My question is: even if the boycotts are entirely about the shitty product on the field, what's wrong with that? Michigan football is historically bad, again, and no one has been fired yet. Why can't we protest that?
October 10th, 2014 at 11:20 AM ^
Between this and that letter from earlier this week, I can only think this guy is completely blind to any contrarian opinion.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:17 PM ^
oh look, the anti-Brandon mob on this board just turned into a kettle... and it now appears tha - yes, they are in fact calling the kettle black.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:31 PM ^
I lol'd.
At least be informed if you want to be a dick.
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/student-government-website-letter-why-boyco…
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/students-brandon-not-michigan-we-are-boycot…
October 10th, 2014 at 11:28 AM ^
I believe Michigan football players are not pussies, therefore the students have free will to boycott DB. Michigan can win this game if they focus on doing their job. I see a big victory coming.
October 10th, 2014 at 11:49 AM ^
Amen!
October 10th, 2014 at 11:29 AM ^
hurt Dave where it matters. The best protest we as fans can do is to stop buying Michigan gear until Dave is gone. That includes nothing bought or asked for during Christmas, etc.... Also, if you are at the game buy no food and/or drinks. And if (god help us) he still remains as AD after December, buy zero tickets to the 2015 season. Dave cares about money, lets take that away from him.
October 10th, 2014 at 12:30 PM ^
October 10th, 2014 at 12:45 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 10th, 2014 at 11:31 AM ^
October 10th, 2014 at 11:31 AM ^